PP vs SY JUCO

Upon petition of the agent and representatives of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (named Narciso
Mendiola) who alleged that, certain fraudulent book letters and records were being kept in the building
No. 482 on Juan Luna Street, Binondo, Manila, occupied by Santiago Sy Juco, a warrant to search the
building was issued.

In said warrant, the peace officers were required to seize the articles for the purpose of delivering them to
the court, for the proper action to be taken in due time.

After making the required search the officers seized, among other things, an art metal filing cabinet
claimed by Attorney Teopisto B. Remo to be his and to contain some letters, documents and papers
belonging to his clients.

The officers refused to return the filing cabinet, so he filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, praying that the Collector of Internal Revenue and his agents be prohibited from opening the art
metal filing cabinet.

He also claimed that the warrant is null and void, being illegal and against the Constitution.

A similar petition was later filed in the same case by the Salakan Lumber Co., Inc., but only Attorney
Teopisto B. Remo appealed from the decision.

Issue

WON the court had the authority to order the opening of the cabinet. (NO)

Ruling

In order that a search warrant may be valid, the following requisites must be present:

1. That the application upon which it is issued be supported by oath;

2. That the search warrant particularly describes not only place to be searched but also the person
or thing to be seized and that there be probable cause.

The true test of the sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has
been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged in case the allegations contained prove false
and that the provisions of the Constitution and the statutes relative to searches and seizures must be
construed liberally in favor of the individual who may be affected thereby, and strictly against the State.

The affidavit does not fulfill the necessary conditions in support of its validity.

o It is not stated in said affidavit that the books, documents or records are being used or are
intended to be used in the commission of fraud against the Government and that they are actually
being used for such purpose.
o It assumes that the entire building No. 482 on Juan Luna Street is occupied by Santiago Sy Juco,
when the only ground upon which such assumption is based is Narciso Mendiola's statement
which is mere hearsay.
o It was not asked that the things belonging to Atty. Remo and to others also be searched.

In otherwords, the warrant in question has gone beyond what had been applied for by Narciso Mendiola
and the agent who executed it performed acts not authorized by the warrant.

The only witness who testified that the art metal filing cabinet belongs to the accused Santiago Sy Juco, is
Macario Garcia. Against Garcia's testimony, we certainly have that of the appellant himself and his
witnesses which conclusively proves that the furniture in question was purchased by Atty. Remo and that
he had it precisely in a room on one of the upper floors of building, which he was then subleasing from
Santiago Sy Juco, to keep his records and those of his clients.

The search warrant in question could not and should not in any way affect the appellant attorney on the
ground that he is not the person against whom it had been sought.

It is Santiago Sy Juco alone against whom the search warrant could be used.

The court could not and cannot order the opening of the art metal filing cabinet in question.

It belongs to the Atty. Remo and that in it he keeps the records and documents of his clients. To do so
would be in violation of his right as such attorney, since it would be tantamount to compelling him to
disclose or divulge facts or things belonging to his clients, which should be kept secret, unless she is
authorized by them to make such disclosure.

It is a duty imposed by law upon an attorney to strictly preserve the secrets or communications made to
him. Such an act would constitute a qualified violation of Act No. 190 (Old Code of Civil Procedure):

An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment;
nor can an attorney's secretary stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of client
and his employer, concerning any fact, the knowledge of which has been acquired in such
capacity.

A lawyer must strictly maintain inviolate the confidence and preserve the secrets of his client. He shall not
be permitted in any court without the consent of his client, given in open court, to testify to any facts
imparted to him by his client in professional consultation, or for the purpose of obtaining advice upon legal
matters. (Sec. 31, Act No. 190.)

Disposition

It is ordered that the art metal filing cabinet, together with the key thereof seized by the internal revenue
agent be immediately returned unopened.

Note

Under the Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, attorneys or persons reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without clients' consent, testify or be examined as to any
communication made by the client to them or as to their advice given on such a communication in the
course of, or with a view to, professional employment; nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer or
clerk or other persons assisting the attorney testify or be examined, without the consent of the client and
the attorney, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.

The Canon 21 of the CPRA requires a lawyer to preserve the confidence and secrets of their client even
after the attorney-client relationship is terminated. It further provides that a lawyer shall not reveal a
client's confidences or secrets except:

o If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit
or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud
o As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same
deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos
transaction.
o As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to their client or by the
client to their lawyer
o As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer
is an attesting witness.
o As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the
communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when
offered in an action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.